Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 19/08/2009 16:17:14: > > Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Yes, this appears how linux impl. VLANs but I wonder if this > > is how VLAN aware switch would impl. it? Looing into 802.1Q it > > sees this is referred to as SVL resp. IVL? I guess linux only > > supports IVL? > > Generally a VLAN aware switch is unable to bridge between different > VLAN's. You would be unable to configure your example except on the > fanciest of switches. > > >> Imagine replacing eth0.1 with eth1 and eth0.2 with eth2. If a certain > >> MAC address is learned on eth1, it would be wrong to send packets > >> destined for that MAC address through eth2. That's pretty much the point > >> of bridging. > > > > Yes it would be wrong, but eth0.1 and eth0.2 are on the same physical LAN > > and could share learned MAC addresses but as it is impl. in linux > > it does not seem possible. > > What would be the point? What is it you're trying to accomplish? If the > machines can communicate on VLAN 1, why do you want them to send traffic > on VLAN 2 instead? trying to do private VLAN, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sanjib-private-vlan-10, using ebtables. It does not seem to be enough to only filter pkgs. Isolated port are special and, as I understand it, they only receive pkgs from the uplink via the primary VLAN and only TX onto the isolated VLAN on the uplink(forget about other ports, it is the uplink that is the problem) _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
